The Taste of the Globes

Critics have always questioned why the Globes have picked movies or series that can be so critically maligned over some of the highest praised entertainment Hollywood made over the year. So I’ll give my opinion on the HFPA: They have a certain taste for flashy movies.

What I mean by this is that they’re amazed by visuals and productions, and often have higher opinions of those films or TV series of other ones. Take for example 2009’s Avatar. Before the Globes, people thought the race was between The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air. But when Avatar won, everyone was in shock, including director James Cameron. The reason why it won, I believe, is it because it turns your attention to the special effects. The movie is visually spectacular, but the movie is it is too similar to Dances with Wolves, that it could be confused with a script reading of the movie.

The Globes’ taste can be beneficiary. They did give the first major TV award to The Sopranos and later Mad Men. But they’ve also given awards to Nip/Tuck, Glee, Grey’s Anatomy, Ugly Betty, Desperate Housewives, and pretty much every show on Showtime over The Wire (never nominated), Breaking Bad, Friday Night Lights (never nominated either), Arrested Development, The Office (US), and many other series.

The Globes also like to have movie stars, hence nominating George Clooney’s middling Ides of March, even though he was already in contention for the far superior The Descendants.

I feel the highest praised movies and TV shows should win. After all, shouldn’t awards go to the best. Sometimes the best can be visually spectacular or have big stars, but I feel quality goes first. The Globes should take a look at this.

It’s more true for television than movies for the production value, which you gave me the list of. And I’ll never understand how Arrested Development couldn’t win Best Comedy when shows like Grey’s Anatomy can take awards home.